The Efficacy of the SA EIA Regime

1
The Efficacy of the SA EIA Regime

• Time for Change
• Back to the future?
• Presentation by
• Gideon (Kallie) Erasmus of Erasmus Attorneys

2
Precondition for development

• Every generation puts its own scratches on the
  surface of this planet - this is called progress
  or development.
• Otherwise we would have no electricity, no mining
  or manufacturing and would all still be doing our
  business behind the nearest bush.

3
Its all about balance!

• To think that we can (or should) bubble-wrap the
  environment is a nonsense.
• Sound environmental governance re-quires an
  appropriate balance between people and the
  environment.

4
So we have independent assessments, do we?

• How many EIA Reports recommend that
  auth-orisation be denied?
• How many applications are withdrawn because
  applicants become persuaded that the proposed
  activity is environmentally un-justifiable?
• None!

5
So we have independent assessments, do we? (2).

• WHY?
• EAPs are paid to secure authorisations, not to
  undertake objective assessments.
• It is absurd to anchor the veracity of an EIA in
  the independence of a paid service provider.

6
Different listings are a waste of time.

• Since when is the listing of an activity more
  important than the impacts it is likely to have?
• In this context there are only two types of
  activities
• Those that will have significant impacts and
• Those that wont.

7
Different listings are a waste of time (2).

• It is scientifically impossible to anticipate the
  likely impacts of a type of activity.
• Every proposed activity must be assessed on its
  contextually specific merits.
• To think that some types warrant lesser
  assess-ment by definition is to betray the
  environ-ment and those who stand to be affected.

8
A Better Way

• A single, suitably flexible regime is better than
  the present artificially differentiated system.
• Every EIA must be appropriate to the im-pacts of
  a proposed activity and not its listing.

9
A Better Way (2)

• Such a system would comprise (in every instance)
• Application Scoping report
• Notification for registration and comment on
  Scoping proposal
• Revised Scoping if necessary
• EIA phase
• Decision and
• Appeal.

10
Isnt this how it worked under the 1998
Regulations?

• No. This is how it was supposed to work under
  the 1998 Regulations until some clever
  so-and-so perverted the concept of scoping.
• Scoping in this context is a research pro-posal
  and, as such, devoid of substantive content.

11
Avoiding the 1998 pitfalls.

• Conflate the application and scoping phases.
• Prohibit authorisation without an EIA Report.
• Make the applicant responsible for justifying the
  extent of the assessment to be under-taken.

12
Thank you so very much for this opportunity.

• Gideon (Kallie) Erasmus
• Erasmus
• Environmental, Development and Property Law
  Attorneys
• kallieerasmus_at_gmail.com
• Tel [phone]
• Fax [phone]